A British Teacher of 7 year old children (who named the stuffed bear by popular vote) is charged (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/22007049/)with inciting religious hatred for naming it Muhammad.

Each child was allowed to take the bear home on weekends and write a diary about what they did with it. The diary entries were collected in a book with the bear’s picture on the cover, labeled, “My Name is Muhammad,”


I do not follow the teachings of Muhammad or Allah but I find it hard to believe that someone would fault a teacher or class for naming, caring for and documenting the adventures of a toy bear that is if my children is any example an object of love and affection...
Religious Fanatics for the win

Teacher was found guilty. 15 days in jail and deportation. Same article link as above.

http://youtube.com/watch?v=nhbHVEGnYD8

I love this clip. Obviously meant for preschoolers.


But remember, that ol' Moe loved children too, he had a 12 year old wife <he fvcked>.

Nice Profit, if you ask me. Hey, I'm gonna jump on any pedo priest just as fast as the next guy, but at least Moses or Jesus did not diddle little girls.

I have to edit this post. Moses was a genocidal child rapist monster.

Teacher was found guilty. 15 days in jail and deportation. Same article link as above.

We are talking about Sudan here.
The regime that removed the 'sane' from their 'insane'.


Eri

That is truly a place where no good deed goes unpunished.

I have recently learned more about the arabic/muslim culture. Some of what happens makes more sense. Not in the fact that it happens, but the 'reasoning' behind it happening.

I have two opinions on this story.

1. It's certainly overkill for the offense. Naming a Teddy bear shouldn't cause this kind of strife. Imprisonment is certainly not an appropriate response to this sort of thing.

2. What the hell was this woman thinking? She either intended this or she is the dumbest woman on the planet. If you are a westerner living and working in a Muslim country, perhaps it's not the best idea to do something that would obviously offend some Muslims.

She either did this intentionally to stir up trouble or the woman had zero common sense.

http://edition.cnn.com/2007/WORLD/africa/11/30/sudan.bears/?imw=Y&iref=mpstoryemail

Not in the fact that it happens, but the 'reasoning' behind it happening.

You see reason here?

Common sense does _not_ say that naming a teddy bear after a child in the class is inappropriate. That's what at least some of the children said they were doing in the first place, when _they_ (not the teacher!) selected the name for the bear.

If there is a silver lining, it is that incidents like this may help to marginalize the extremists of Islam.

Another thought: Under the circumstances, the 15 day imprisonment followed by (immediate?) expulsion might be the best possible outcome for the teacher in terms of protecting her safety, given that there are people calling for blood. Imagine if she was found innocent and set free with a lynch mob waiting for her?

Common sense does _not_ say that naming a teddy bear after a child in the class is inappropriate. That's what at least some of the children said they were doing in the first place, when _they_ (not the teacher!) selected the name for the bear.

If there is a silver lining, it is that incidents like this may help to marginalize the extremists of Islam.

Another thought: Under the circumstances, the 15 day imprisonment followed by (immediate?) expulsion might be the best possible outcome for the teacher in terms of protecting her safety, given that there are people calling for blood. Imagine if she was found innocent and set free with a lynch mob waiting for her?

The point of course is that the whole prosecution was politically motivated. The rulers of the country used this 'insult' to galvanise the masses to support them by giving them a foreign enemy to hate. Remember that they are pretty much forced to accept a peace keeping force of other african nations in Darfur (it was that or the UN stepping in, authorising military action against the regime). This hate mongering is a step to preemptively make the work of that peacekeeping force impossible.


Eri

Religiously motivated.

The surprising part of all this is that the judge probably made a sensible ruling under the laws he had to follow. He convicted the teacher of insulting Islam, in this case specifically the prophet Mohammed, but threw out the charges of incitement and blashphemy. He didn't impose corporal punishment. It doesn't surprise me that Sudan has laws intolerant of religious infraction.

It's all the politics surrounding the case that disturb me.

Politics?

You are talking about Sudan.

It's government is a militant extremist Islamic fundamentalist genocidal regime.

A government which has been for at least the last 8 years exterminating it's black Christian countrymen and women. Actively raping and murdering hundreds of thousands of people in the name of Mohammed and Allah.

You have got to be kidding me.

I am not surprised they did not send her to an Islamic Sudanese rape prison for the rest of her life.

These people are animals, and base their actions on the teachings of a murder and child molester, and some invisible petulant child god. It is not politics, their politics are only the outward worldly extension of their religion.

It is their religion. This is what these beasts believe. They are evil creatures.

But remember, that ol' Moe loved children too, he had a 12 year old wife <he fvcked>.

Nice Profit, if you ask me. Hey, I'm gonna jump on any pedo priest just as fast as the next guy, but at least Moses or Jesus did not diddle little girls.
Sigh.

Read some history. The idea of a woman needing to be 18 years old to marry is something quite new.

In fact, in Romeo and Juliet, Juliet was 13 years old.

The Clint Eastwood movie 'Pale Rider' has a 15 year old girl mention that she and Clint should get married. While viewed by today's standards it seems like she is being a child making fantasies, it should be viewed as quite serious, as she mentions her mother married at 15 too.

In the Jewish religion, a male has a Bar Mitzvah at 13 and a female a Bat Mitzvah at 12. While today it is considered just a religious ceremony, in the past you REALLY were an adult afterwards.

Also, Fyyr Lu'Storm, how old do you think Mary was when she married Joseph?

As said in the movie Dogma, while she might have been a virgin when she conceived Jesus (something that is rather vague in the scripture, by the way), do you really think that after Jesus was born they never had sexual relations for their entire marriage?

Most of those people are fictional characters.

And not prophets or founders of any of the world's larger religions.

Most of those people are fictional characters.

And not prophets or founders of any of the world's larger religions.
Please correct me if I am reading this wrong but my statement that in the past women would marry very young is wrong because I happened to use some fictional characters as an example?

And the Virgin Mary doesn't count because she is not a prophet or founder of a major religion?

Sorry, that is about the weakest argument I've ever seen. Please go to the nearest Catholic Church and tell the Priest there that the Virgin Mary is unimportant.

Note that you didn't say I was wrong about past societies having women marry at young ages (which is good because I'm right) but that the examples I used are fictional. Fine, I'll get you some real life ones.

http://marriage.about.com/cs/teenmarriage/a/teenmarriage.htm
In Ancient Rome, people didn't marry because they were in love. Folks married to carry on the family bloodline and for economical or political reasons. Women were under the jurisdiction of their fathers, so young girls were often married off when they were between the ages of twelve and fourteen. Some young men married at the age of fourteen also.

During the Middle Ages, the practice of youthful marriages continued and women married as early as fourteen. Men generally waited until they were more established in life which was usually when they were in their twenties or early thirties. In 1371, due to the plague, the average age at marriage for men was 24, and for women it was 16. By 1427, the average male of all classes did not wed til he was in his mid-30's, usually choosing a bride about half his age. Rich girls seemed to marry at a younger age than poor girls.
I made parts of this BOLD to help you see them.


http://www.medindia.net/health_statistics/general/marriageage.asp
Average Age at Marriage - India - Prior to 1951 Men: 20 Women: 13

http://womenofhistory.blogspot.com/2007/08/medieval-marriage-childbirth.html
For many noble-born or royal women, marriage could and often did take place at a young age. There are many instances or very young girls being betrothed and married under the age of 10 years old. This did not necessarily mean that the marriage was consummated. However, there was a perception that once a girl began her period that she was considered to be of marriageable age.

http://www.sfgenealogy.com/sf/history/hgoe49.htm
California Marriage Law
California Law Review, 1919
Furthermore, if the parties are above seven years of age and have parental sanction, as prescribed by the Code, an absolutely binding marriage is formed.

None of that changes the fact that Moe was a child molester and pedophiliac.

None of that changes the fact that millions of unwashed ignorant <cretins> worship him. Including the muslims who would execute the teacher.

None of that changes the fact that Moe was a child molester and pedophiliac.

None of that changes the fact that millions of unwashed ignorant <cretins> worship him. Including the muslims who would execute the teacher.
uhammad may or may not have been a child molester and pedophiliac. But you haven't show him to be. The only thing you offered was he married a 12 year old. That is not proof.

To help you understand, he might not have had sexual relations with her until she was older. Perhaps you should check the Qur'an for me and let me know if it says he did, or if she had children at that age, which I consider proof. I don't care, so I leave it up to you to prove your statement.

Secondly, even if he did have sex with her, that would make a large number of people child molesters and pedophiliac throughout history. It also begs the question of exactly what age is sex ok and why. Exactly what is wrong with a 12 year old who is married having sex?

As for "the fact that millions of unwashed ignorant <cretins> worship him.", I agree. That is true of every major religion, the only difference is who they worship.

As for the idiots who want the teacher dead, they are idiots and the fact that they worship Islam is just the circumstances. In another place or time, it could be any religion or no religion, just some other thing. Salem witch trials, anyone?

And the Virgin Mary doesn't count because she is not a prophet or founder of a major religion?


How old would you say was Mary at the time God raped her?

How old would you say was Mary at the time God raped her?

I doubt the bible mentions it, but given the pattern that Fanra pointed out she likely was about 13 or 14 years old. That was after all the age that girls habitually were married off, and given that she was married but not yet pregnant she can not have been married for very long.

Of course you are sidestepping a minor issue here and ignoring the larger picture. Namely that throughout history likely over 90pct of all men have been child molesters and pedophiliacs by today's standards. Mohammed was no exception to the general rule at his time, nor to the general rule for the next 1000 years I might add.

Am I defending him? No. Even at his own time there was some frowning over a girl that young marrying. Not because she was so young, no doubt, but because she was not yet menstruating (and thus there was no point in having her marry anybody since she could not get pregnant). In another year or maybe two none of his followers would have worried a moment about the girl's age.

You can not look at historical events purely through a modern outlook. You have to take society, culture and believes of the time into account. By that Mohammed was not a child molester, he merely was a bit early in marrying a woman. Most likely, if he had not been the prophet who could claim divine commands to justify his actions (and to get what he wanted) he would have had to pay the girl's father for the right to marry her and everybody would have thought that entirely reasonable.


Eri

But people in our culture today worship the god, and the prophet.

And in our culture having sex with young girls is rape.

That makes them rapists, by OUR standards. And you all worship and revere them.

I don't write the rules. I am just recounting them. Just because they glossed over these points in Sunday school for you don't make it any less rape, by our standards.

That makes them rapists, by OUR standards. And you all worship and revere them.


I am assuming you are using some kind of hyperbole or figure of speech here with that 'you', since I know I do not worship any god, nor do I think I have ever given the impression that I condone the typical abusive or discriminatory practices of most religions.

The only thing that I am trying to explain to you is that it is meaningless to judge somebody who lived over almost 14 centuries ago by today's standards.
It is the same as saying that Isaac Newton was not a brilliant physicist by today's knowledge or Jesse Owens was not the fastest man on earth because nowadays people can run even faster. It does not matter if that is true or false because their accomplishments can only be judged in the context of their own time. The same is true for Muhammed.

Now, if you ask me if his example justifies doing the same thing today, then I will say of course not. Just as our understanding of physics has changed, and better training allows people to run faster than ever before, so has our notion of morals and our understanding of biology and health. What people thought of as normal a millenium ago, we have come to understand as wrong for a multitude of reasons. Nobody should let the development of their sense of morality be halted by a 1400 (or 2000) year old book. Those are still mere words, filtered through human understanding of that time. They are not, and should not be, a justification to switch off your brain and live your life through somebody else's script.


I don't write the rules. I am just recounting them. Just because they glossed over these points in Sunday school for you don't make it any less rape, by our standards.

I have no idea what they teach and do not teach in Sunday school, but see above for why I think that judging centuries old behaviour by today's standard is pointless.


Eri

English language does not have a you plural.

Southern Americans sometimes will use the contraction "ya'll" which comes from "you all". Which is what I wrote.

I did not mean YOU personal. I did not mean YOU singular. I did not mean YOU specific.

Fanra, you have a serious misconception of what Bar and Bat Mitzvah is. First off you don't "have" a Bar Mitzvah, you become one. Second, this age simply means you are now old enough to be held responcible to uphold the commandments. There is no ceremony necessary nor are any mentioned in the Talmud.

Here is a quick cut and paste for you :

In Pirkei Avot, it is said that while 13 is the proper age for fulfillment of the Commandments, 18 is the proper age for marriage (http://www.jewfaq.org/defs/marriage.htm) and 20 is the proper age for earning a livelihood. Elsewhere in the Talmud, the proper age for marriage is said to be 16-20.

Anyway, it's not really important, but you needed correction on that point.

Cladari

English language does not have a you plural.

Southern Americans sometimes will use the contraction "ya'll" which comes from "you all". Which is what I wrote.

I did not mean YOU personal. I did not mean YOU singular. I did not mean YOU specific.

Thank you for explaining, and thank you for not contesting the point I was trying to make.


Eri

Oh, I contest it.

I really don't care about a bunch of hairy smelly illiterate middle eastern barbarians and what they did.

I do care that they still have a hold over our lives today.

These rapist prophets and rapist gods are still worshiped by people today. People who drive planes into buildings. And by people who seek to control your lives through political power and by their laws you must abide by.

These are the WORST sort of people who should be running things, or even having a say. The truths of the atrocities of their chosen death and rape cults should be told, and retold without the apologist rhetorical sugar coating of sunday or saturday school preachers.

Rapist and Genocidal Gods.

31:7 And they warred against the Midianites, as the LORD commanded Moses; and they slew all the males.

31:8 And they slew the kings of Midian, beside the rest of them that
were slain; namely, Evi, and Rekem, and Zur, and Hur, and Reba, five
kings of Midian: Balaam also the son of Beor they slew with the sword.

31:9 And the children of Israel took all the women of Midian captives,
and their little ones, and took the spoil of all their cattle, and all
their flocks, and all their goods.

...

31:15 And Moses said unto them, Have ye saved all the women alive?

31:16 Behold, these caused the children of Israel, through the counsel
of Balaam, to commit trespass against the LORD in the matter of Peor,
and there was a plague among the congregation of the LORD.

31:17 Now therefore kill every male among the little ones, and kill
every woman that hath known man by lying with him.

31:18 But all the women children, that have not known a man by lying
with him, keep alive for yourselves.


31:35 And thirty and two
thousand persons in all, of women that had not known man by lying with
him.

Thirty two thousand virgins were divvied up amongst the rapist followers of Moses and God, raped...

Oh, I contest it.

I really don't care about a bunch of hairy smelly illiterate middle eastern barbarians and what they did.

I do care that they still have a hold over our lives today.


Scary as that may sound, other than your hyperbole, I do agree with you that trying to live in the past because it was acceptable 15 or 20 centuries ago is wrong. And that trying to force others to adhere to your notions is even worse.


Eri

But people in our culture today worship the god, and the prophet.

And in our culture having sex with young girls is rape.

That makes them rapists, by OUR standards. And you all worship and revere them.

I don't write the rules. I am just recounting them. Just because they glossed over these points in Sunday school for you don't make it any less rape, by our standards.

So Fyyr, what type of big criminal are you for the peoples in a few mileniums? If in the average human live up to 300 years old, maybe the sleeping with a children of under 25 years old would be one of the ultimate perversion, And maybe you will need to wait until 50 years old to be considerated an adult.

When you live up to 35-40 years, if you want to see your children becoming adultes and having all the capacities to survive by them-self, you need to begin a lot more early that you do today. If you begin at 30-35 years old, your child will be a young children that will not be able to survive by him-self, and the mother will probably die during the childbirth.

Look at the people that have 80+ years, it was the look an human of 40 years old a few centuries ago.

You can't judge the humans of the past by today rules. All you can do is to avoid to keep living by the same rules, if the why for these rules no longuer apply. And to denouce them as desuete rules.

Eridalafar

Human life span has not moved one frakin inch in all recorded history, no matter all the most modern medicine, and I don't see that changing any time soon.

Average life span has increased, of course, but life span? No.

Cladari

Apparently human intelligence hasn't either.